Search results

L3 is the primary contractor there, so between them smoke screening Israeli involvement and the big boon to Bombardier regarding domestic production, I can't see it being an issue. Canada already purchased Israeli radars and recently Spike ATGM's, so I don't think Israeli pushes it off the...

I don't think that part of the sales pitch was the issue, the USN seemed fairly clear that they were always going to make a bunch of modifications to whatever design was chosen. Journalists and politicians misunderstood that as an "off the shelf" purchase and when they didn't see what they...

I am continually baffled by the talking points pushed by journalists and armchair admirals that the Constellation program is some kind of failure due to a bunch of different issues, I think I spoke about this sometime last year but they keep harping on the same points. As much as I find it...

Personally I think Morrison and many others there are full of crap with their assertions that Canada isn't spending enough to be a valuable contributor to AUKUS Pillar II/we have nothing to offer, we have a variety of private and govt programs throughout the spectrums AUKUS Pillar II is looking...

It would be a really baffling decision to swap MT30 out for LM2500, given that the former is already integrated into the design while the ladder would need to be swapped in and require however many design changes to get done. If this is such a no brainer, why wasn't it done? I have not heard...

MT30, as with the entire propulsion system aboard the Type 26 design, is mounted within an acoustic enclosure to limit noise signature while under operation. MT30 is being used aboard the QE class carriers, the Italian LHD Trieste, Zumwalt, LCS, Mogami class and the Daegu class.

The River class has been using the MT30 from the very beginning, as that is the turbine that the baseline Type 26 frigate utilizes. It doesn't make much sense to swap out a more powerful and seemingly simpler engine for a worse counterpart. MT30 is becoming more and more commonplace on modern...

16 Multi-Purpose Vessels 1 Polar Icebreaker 1 Offshore Oceanographic Science Vessel 3 Offshore fisheries science vessels The OOSV has a PC-6 rating, while the the OFSC is rated to PC-7. "Ice strengthened" would be more accurate, but it doesn't have the media punch lol.

I think the Orca replacement is definitely a relatively easy procurement if we can keep scope creep and peoples fingers out of it, make the required improvements from the feedback/issues found with the Orca's and produce an effective design.

I've heard that the Orca fleets is absolutely beat as with much of the existing fleet, although even more so given the abuse put upon them by constant trainee operations.

I've said it previously that I do not trust the RCN and Canadian Govt not to send any Orca replacement away from its key training roles, and swap it into other roles to take up slack within the fleet. The only reason this hasn't happened with the Orca's is that they are physically unable to...

Not particularly, given that such a vessel doesn't need those polar classes for its designated roles. One has to understand that the higher polar class that is integrated into a design, the more rigid of a traditional icebreaker it becomes. AOPS is able to operate abroad due to its lower ice...

Hamina is a fully fledged missile boat with anti-ship missiles, light anti-aircraft missiles, a substantial main gun and a full suite of sensors/decoys. This kind of combatant is utterly useless for the Royal Canadian Navy and is a substantial waste of time, effort and money. The Orca's entire...

Far too much combatant in the Hamina class, when something like the Orca needs to focus on its primary goal as a training platform.

Hence the “offshore” monicker lol, it’s a balanced design that isn’t suited simple for the Arctic and that was intended.

There is nothing stopping you from making an icebreaker able to operate as a submarine recovery ship, given sufficient equipment put aboard. These utility roles aren’t especially difficult for icebreakers to undertake, given how they are large and somewhat spacious vessels in the first place. I...

Because “warship” is just a designation given to ships operated by navies generally, not something that denotes being a combatant.

There is a distinct and very obvious implication that if you are having icebreakers built for the Navy, they are going to be armed. They are pushing a narrative here and to try to weasel out of it, I think is pretty disingenuous on their part. Saying "armed" and slapping some CIWS/HMG's on it...

Armed icebreakers? I'd argue not, given that is what the AOPS initially started as and it was pretty quickly found to be a niche, insanely costly capability to hoist upon the Navy. There was apparently a large PC-3 class icebreaker considered in 2006-2007 for the Navy, sporting a 57mm main gun...

'Come out of the left field' is my guess, given it has been the Conservatives talking point for silly armed icebreakers in years past and recently on the campaign trail.